 So it looks like Anamika is traveling and she will try to make it whenever she has a stable connection. Yeah, also Leon is traveling to, he's currently in Indonesia. He mentioned that he would try to be joining us but he wasn't able to control his schedule. Okay. We know how that works when you're on a blog. So we are 10 of us now in principle, I would say we could begin unless you want to like maybe wait a couple of more minutes. Now there's already a nice group of people being online with us. So also just for not creating habits, starting late always maybe then it's just also time for us to start. So welcome everybody, nice to see some nice group of people here. In today's webinar in the Trans Path Plan Project. We have Denise Fancy, and Denise is a is a graduate of our Water Management and Governance Master Program at IHC Delft. And Denise has done in the last six months her research and successfully completed her MSC thesis research that I have here in my hand, called Cultivating Change in Agro-Ecosystems, a closer look at policy and practice to support wetlands transformations in Kenya. She worked in Kenya in the Yala wetlands with the group of Professor Kittaka and Risper, who is also here with us and produced some really nice work that is worth sharing within the project team. Also because of course her work was done with the support of the project. And it's good to report a little bit back off that. That being said, I would say I give the floor to you, Denise. Let's take just a normal kind of approach. You present your work afterwards, there's time for questions. And please, the floor is yours. Thank you. Yeah. And good afternoon everyone. Thank you all for joining us and for the interest in this topic. And thanks to the chance that team for organizing this webinar and giving me a platform to really share my research. So, thank you. While I present if you allow me, I'll briefly turn off my camera and then I will turn it back on at the end so we could have a good discussion. All right. So as I begin this presentation, let me start by painting a vivid picture for you. Imagine for a moment a pristine wetland in Kenya, teaming with life and providing invaluable ecosystem services. Now envision the sustainability challenges this delicate ecosystem faces from intensive human activities exacerbated by complex policy dynamics. This is the essence of my research titled cultivating change in agro ecosystems which delves into the concept of transformation in the context of wetland social ecological systems and examines the influence of policies on their sustainability. Through a case study approach for six months I focused on the yellow wetland in Western Kenya and I passionately investigated the interplace between policies and the conservation and management of the 17,500 hectare agro ecosystem. And so today I'm really excited to share my findings with you. But before I do so, let me quickly outline the agenda for my presentation so you know what to expect. So during the next 15 minutes I will cover three key areas that summarize my research. Firstly, I will provide an overview of the research question objectives and conceptual framework to highlight the overall aim and structure of the study. Next I will discuss the research methodology I use in examining the case study. And finally, and as the focus of this presentation I will share my findings on the influence of policies on the transformation of the yellow wetland. And so I really look forward to addressing your questions during the Q&A segment at the end. Without any further delay, let me proceed to part one of my presentation. One objective of this research is to understand the influence of policies on the transformation of wetland agro ecosystems in Kenya. And in order to achieve this overarching objective, I identified three sub-objectives that allowed me to systematically explore the complex interactions between policies and the yellow wetland. And so the first sub-objective focuses on a policy analysis that assesses transformation prospects. The second was to investigate local level practices and their impact on higher level policy making. The third aimed at identifying lessons and recommendations for transformation pathways planning. In this context, the main research question guiding my study is what influence do policies on wetlands conservation and management have on the transformation of wetland agro ecosystems. So now moving on to the conceptual framework. This is a visual representation of the framework I developed for this research. It is underpinned by key theoretical concepts. As you can see at the core is the concept of transformation, which really shows that transformation is an interaction between the interconnected policy system and wetland system. And it is characterized by six attributes proposed by Fidele et al. So these are restructuring, part-shifting, innovative, multi-scale, system-wide and persistent. The addition of multi-phase as the seventh characteristic accounts for the dynamic nature of policy making, which often occurs in multiple phases or stages with each phase building on the previous ones and leading to further changes. It recognizes that transformation processes involve iterative cycles of learning, experimentation and adaptation. Building upon this, this framework also incorporates the concept of top down and bottom up policy making, as indicated by the blue arrows in the diagram, where policy actions in one system really influences the other system and vice versa. So I will now provide an overview of the research methodology I use for this qualitative study. To address the research questions, I conducted a policy analysis, which was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, I use a multi-dimensional approach to assess separately the context, content, processes and actors involved in policy making in both systems. And then in the second phase, I evaluated content of the county level policy to assess the potential for affecting transformation in the YALA wetland. And to support this policy analysis, I utilized four qualitative data collection methods. And in the first instance, I did a literature review on the concept of transformation and the role of policy. And that was really the starting point. Then I completed a document analysis focusing on the formal policy. For primary data collection, I carried out a field study in Kenya, where I administered semi-structured interviews with key performance, key informants, sorry, and conducted a field observation of the YALA wetland itself. So with the data collection completed, I proceeded to analyze the findings, which I will now present in the next slide. So the analysis reveals several key insights about the policy's social ecological system as it relates to policy for conservation and management of the YALA wetland. So it became apparent very early on that the dynamics within and between the policy and the wetland system create a number of forces which have hindered transformation towards sustainability. I therefore recognize that any attempt to balance conservation with socioeconomic objectives is likely to be in what I would refer to as a tug of war with clashing interests. And here I'm talking about politics, community needs, development, and even natural events over which one will have a stronger influence on policy decisions. So politics as a clashing interest. From the literature review, Paterson et al argued that politics interfere with every aspect of policymaking for transformations. In this case study, I recognize that there are notable similarities of politics affecting policymaking processes in the YALA wetland. This was largely indicated by the decades of conflicts over natural resources and the delays in policymaking for and misalignment with environmental sustainability. In the report I shared rich accounts of interviewees talking about the influence of politics on the policymaking processes. And I really share these to highlight that escaping politics in pursuit of conservation toward a balanced social ecological transformation is really on unlikely feet. Because as long as they are those who are pro conservation being powerfully opposed by those against the battle with politics will persist. Then they are community needs which have also taken priority over conservation and restoration of the YALA wetland. This was evident in several instances. For example, the widespread agricultural land conversion by local residents and the over exploitation of the ecosystem resources. However, based on my field observation, it would appear that the most persistent reason for community needs taking priority over conservation and restoration is that basic human needs are not being met in these settlements, which really leaves no room for prioritizing conservation. And so one could really imagine that faced with poverty, conservation does not share the same urgency. The need for amplifying conservation and ecosystem restoration towards sustainability also contends with the forces of foreign investments and large scale development projects. In the case study this was seemingly the biggest challenge preventing a sustainable transformation. As these powerful policy alternatives appear more attractive to government authorities than the incentives to seriously pursue wetlands conservation and management. Among other reasons, this was made obvious from the ongoing government approved land conversion by agro investors. And the power relation that exists among the government actors, the investors and the community members really showed that actors have a lot of power to influence the policy processes and steer top down decisions largely to their benefit in reclaiming more and more land for commercial agricultural expansion. The need for prioritizing conservation and ecosystem restoration actions has also been sidelined by natural weather events. And here I'm also talking about flooding droughts and other consequences of climate change. And in the case study this has created further policy challenges and slow progress of wetlands conservation and management. Olson and Galas explained that these ecological surprises tend to occur when there is a mismatch between institutions and ecosystem. According to these actors there are tendency for people and institutions to resist change and persist in their current management and governance system, despite clear recognition that change is essential. But failing to respond to the feedback of the environment, these actors argue will only lead to more disasters and suffering. So it was clear from the analysis that conservation plays a central part of the social ecological transformation process toward a sustainable wetland. However, with politics, community needs, development and natural events having a stronger influence on policy decisions, conservation is currently fighting a losing battle in this case study. Jostling between these contenders, if environmental values remain secondary and in appropriately scale policy measures are upheld. Other wetland agro ecosystems experiencing similar power dynamics will suffer the same fate as the yellow wetland. In conclusion, I will make a few statements that quickly answer my sub research questions. And I will start by highlighting that while top down influence policy aims to strike a balance between environmental and socio economic needs. Its implementation in the yellow wetland has really led to some improvements but fall short of achieving sustainable development. The policy has not been effective in managing the wetlands ecological qualities and currently appears to have a stronger influence on urban development, which will further degrade the wetlands capacity to provide ecosystem services. There are diverse practices in the yellow wetland where multiple competing interests shape this densely populated ecosystem. The ongoing resource conflicts and collaborative land use planning processes provide an insight into what works and what does not. But it would appear that bottom up voices have not yet effectively reached higher levels of policy making with large agribusinesses holding more influence in driving policies that favor agricultural production. This results in unequal voices on the ground, particularizing agro investors over the poor members of the community. While there was collaboration in the development of the land use plan, it is really unclear if this approach will be sustained. Currently there appears to be an impact in progressing beyond the policy formulation with ongoing court cases and delays which would indicate a lack of a shared vision for wetlands conservation. There were several lessons learned from conducting this research. One of the main takeaway is that policy failures are likely to occur when simple short term solutions are selected without considering the contextual factors affecting both the policy system and the wetlands system. Understanding the complexities of transformation requires recognizing the importance of historic decisions that have shaped the context. It is therefore crucial to acknowledge and to consider this history, not only in terms of understanding ongoing processes, but also in terms of planning for future transformations. This brings me to the end of my presentation and I will close by stating that successful transformation requires a multi-dimensional approach. With inclusive decision making among top-down and bottom-up policy makers to steer wetland social ecological transformations towards a more sustainable future where a wetland and its communities can really thrive. Thank you. So I am now open for any questions. Thank you for your attention in listening to my presentation. Yes, thank you, Denise. And you stopped at the right time that my kids came home, so let's say something back. Are there any questions from online? Yeah, I have a question. Yeah. Please, I'm press I think. Wait, let me do something because I'm looking now at. Thanks for the presentation and congrats on the great thesis. Thank you. I had a question about the conclusion that you make that other wetlands are following or are likely to meet the same fate as the Yala wetland if things don't change. Yeah. But I was curious, like at least in Kenya, are there wetlands that are then still pristine in the sense as you painted it in your opening words? Or are they all kind of like the Yala wetlands already? So from my understanding, most of them are on that trajectory as the Yala wetland. I cannot speak totally to all wetlands in Kenya, but I know a lot of them are being cultivated, drained for the purpose of agricultural production. So if this continues along that path, my theory is that they will suffer similar fate as the Yala wetlands. Yeah. We have, luckily, our Kenyan partners who are specialists in wetlands online, so they should be able to tell you more if they can join the discussion and tell us more about wetlands in Kenya. I don't know if you can hear me, can you hear me? Yes, Risper. Hi, Dr. Ondeik. First, thank you very much, Denise, for the wonderful work you did and highlighting key issues in the Yala wetland. Yes. And to add to what Andres asked you, is that actually Yala wetland will stay still better than what most wetlands in Kenya have gone through because we have wetlands in Kenya, which have actually disappeared. So you wouldn't know there was a wetland, you just find a farmland, like maize plantation or vegetative plantation instead of a wetland. It is an increasing trend in Kenya and even in Uganda where you have wetland policies which are supposed to enable sustainable utilization of wetlands, the same trend is happening. So the main issue is cultivation of and sustainable cultivation of wetlands, especially within Tabsara and Africa. If you look at Tanzania, the same issue, you look at Kenya, the same issue, you're going to have the same and even wonder. Yeah. Someone asked a chat question, I think. You're muted, yeah. You're muted. So you can repeat the question out loud. So let me do that then. Hello Denise, could you throw more, could you throw more light on the differential different skills policies used for policy analysis, where there are evidence contradictions, county level or national level do such contradictions proved to be an impediment to bring about transformation within wetlands ecosystems, agro ecosystems. I don't understand the question quite clearly, can you repeat it, it was breaking up a bit in the middle. Well, maybe you can read the chat, but the interesting one of the things of course, in this case it's also that Kenya is of course rather decentrally organized with decentralization to county levels and would you see contradictions at national level and at county level and what, how does that influence many transformations at wetlands agro ecosystems also because you looked at these bottom up and top down. So, from what I understand most of the power is at the county level for wetlands conservation and management, though they are key legal instruments and structures at the national level that would guide these county level policy actions so while there's more power there at the county level, it is within the environmental and management structure and the institutional framework at the national level. So they both work as I understand it together to help try and bring about transformations. Although what I would add is that perhaps if there is more influence from national level then we couldn't get closer to a sustainable transformation. So right now it's at county level. And in the case of the yellow wetland we're seeing that there are two counties who really are in charge of the transformation process so the conservation and management of the yellow wetland would extend across the Busea and the CIA county and so they share responsibility in bringing about the transformation. But I would think that if we are improving on the legal and institutional framework at the national level we can perhaps achieve the transformation goals even faster. Yes, because you mentioned something about the big agro businesses who do have connections, also I think at higher levels. Yet at the same time of course when we think about decentralized governance, it is well argued to better relate to local or bottom up needs and responsiveness to local needs. So how does that relate to community, maybe having access to county level government and these agro businesses who have connections, also at county level but maybe also higher up. Yeah, I, from what I tell you about that. Yeah, so based on my research with the yellow wetland, we could see really how stronger government support is given to agro businesses and at times and more often than not you see a case where there's contradictions in the policy approach. So in one instance you would see government saying that they support transformation and sustainable actions within the yellow wetland, yet they are also giving strong support to conversion of the wetland. And so there's a case right now in court where more land is being given to a specific agro investor, despite the unsustainable agricultural practices it's steered towards more development and organization and commercial agricultural production, even though in the policy itself, the yellow land use plan is an example of that. You're saying they want to balance the activities and create sustainability, but on the other hand, how is the conversion of this wetland supporting that goal. And I'm not sure at the local level if there is a strong support from the government in empowering local voices, from what I can tell this is not the case. When I'm speaking to the residents at the local level, they comment on how they're not getting strong support from the local government and national government, they don't get assistance in terms of their needs and while these are not necessarily focused on conservation, it's still showing that there's not a strong relationship between local community needs and the government actors. Okay, I think Jaya and, or Jaya and Emanuele have a rather similar kind of topic in their questions. Did you also see practices when conservation and community and community needs were going hand in hand. And that might relate to the collaborative approach that is mentioned by Emanuele. Yes, there's this group called the Yellow Ecosystem Site Support Group, and they work along with Nature Kenya and they focus on conservation actions within the yellow wetland specifically. And so that's a good example of where communities are working together to bring about positive conservation change within the yellow wetland. But it is not at the scale that it needs to be. And if, and this is coming also from the Yellow Ecosystem Site Support Group, they're encouraging more of the community members to get involved so that the collaborative actions can be amplified. So it exists, but really it needs to be increased in terms of the conservation actions. To add to what I said about conservation, sorry. Go on. Yes, Riesper. Somebody was talking, that's what I've said, go on. All right, just continue. Yes, please. Okay. So to add what you have said about conservation groups within the community members. Because when we are having an interview with them, we realize that they have two voices. So when you talk to them as conservation group, they're talking about conservation of the yellow wetland or sustainability of the yellow wetland. But now when you talk to them as a community, their priority changes immediately. They're like, this place there's no, there's no equitable allocation of land for agriculture within the wetland. So they kind of shifting their, their goal when it comes to conservation of the wetland. So at times they want conservation, but as a community members which will ask them, the priority is meeting the community needs. So it's kind of, it would be very difficult to actually come up with a way in which we can, at the same time have community needs met, and at the same time have conservation. So somehow we'll have to find a way of striking a balance with the communities who speak two voices. We need conservation but at the same time, there should be equity within the wetland. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. I think I'm just wanted to say something that's I think the person that's interrupted in the. Sorry, I'm lazy type or I think I wondered how, if you can say a little bit more about how strong this community authority is in the sense that it's possible that in a community there is this initiative to protect the wetlands. But if the community doesn't have the authority to, to, to influence others, or to make to make its members follow its initiative. Then, how do you think that that that transformation to sustainability or sustainable development of wetlands can, can happen. So I think you highlighted one of the key issues in this case study, because really the top down policy actors, they have a stronger influence. And while there are some options from the yellow ecosystem site support group is it's not as influential as the government to really have the resources and the legal authority to steer the transformation of the yellow wetland toward more reclamation than sustainability so you're right in saying that are questioning the strength of the authorities at the local level. It's really not balanced and so if there is to be a change towards sustainable transformation then I would recommend that voices from local levels and be empowered to create stronger actions within the yellow wetland. At the moment that is not the case. Yes, I think I mean something a bit different. Okay, not in comparison to, to national or county actors community itself community, what kind of decisions can they make, or what kind of actions do they perform. All members to a blind, for example, pay taxes or administer some kind of title or access to land and if that is the case. How are the members respecting that authority is a question clear. No, because I, for example, I live in Amsterdam and if my municipality says under us don't work on the grass than me and half of Amsterdam don't listen to us. So they have come up with all kinds of legal instruments that go beyond the municipality to give me fines if I break those rules. It's then difficult to create something locally. There are also places where you go and that community authority is so strong that if the community authority says don't do it, people don't do it they listen or they follow that authority, more than the national one. So how, what happens locally that communities can contribute to that transformation that you. That's a tough question for me. Risper, would you be able to help me here. When it comes to like when it comes to land in Kenya, let's select the wetland itself. The wetland in real sense belongs to the community. In reality, because it's said that the wetland is a community land, but in reality, since the wetland has not been written down or has a law has not been passed that the wetland belongs to the community. The wetland now belongs to the county government. Right. So, in most cases, the county government would decide what activities and how the land within the wetland should be used. And also, the national authorities like dozens dealing with the environment and water looks on the quantity of water how it's being extracted within the wetland. The community per se, I will say that they have a responsibility or a legal responsibility within the wetland apart from just the general one of the environment that you should conserve the environment around you, but they don't have a real voice when it comes to how the wetland should be used. Because even those who have the wetlands, their lands close the wetland they're using the wetland illegally. Because you cannot say that the wetland belongs to you. Yes, you are cultivating it for advocacy or whatever, but it doesn't belong to you. So, they don't have title deeds but there are some places in Kenya where people have enforced the wetland and through bogus ways or two illegalities they have obtained title deed so they can actually tell you how we can use this part of the wetland and they can actually influence policies within those areas but that is also legally acquired title deeds. But when it comes to users like extracting papyrus, that is now a public good, you can have papyrus from a wetland, you can get water from a wetland for community use. But if you want to use it now for commercial use, you'll have to go through authorities which will give you a line sense on how much you can extract from a wetland. But generally the communities do not have a voice on how to use the wetland. Can I ask another question now? If I understood you, there are cases where communities legally or not have sort of obtained a title deed or title document about a particular wetland so that the community is the sort of the owner, if we can say that. Actually it is not the community but an individual. Let's say like you somehow you found a way of getting a piece of a wetland so it's just you know the community. Because then I thought it would be interesting to see what differences in terms of initiatives to conserve it from a local perspective. If the community actually had a stake there as a collective, which it seems that they have not. It will be a different world game if the community actually have a stake in the wetland legally. Then they could actually have a voice on saying that we can conserve this amount of the wetland but right now it's just through, let me say formal engagement that the community like the land use plan within the wetland. They say that the community were engaged, which is required by the law, and they say that this is the amount of the wetland we should be used for agriculture, this one will be conserved. But in real sense, that is what is written in the document but in the real sense, politics has taken over and the people were being prioritized, like the private investors were being prioritized by the utilization of the wetland and the community are now left out. That's exactly what they're fighting for. For example, the Lake Canabole community, they really want a bigger area within the yellow wetland so that they can really use it for the benefit of the community. And so that's one of the issues they have with the agro investor being allotted all this land and they're saying by the time the lease is off what will be left there for them. There's nothing for to be conserved at the end of that lease. So yeah, they don't really have the power. They just have to accept and be involved in the policymaking process as much as they are allowed by the government. Yeah, it's then also not per se sense that these community members would like to conserve and preserve it the wetland they would at the same time maybe also want to reclaim it for agricultural production. That's exactly it. So what is I think interesting is then then it becomes a local political issue because then you have like part of the community that wants to that has that initiative that Denise just explained and others might have different ideas. But but now they are kind of circumventing the community authority to what level it exists and the initiative because they can just talk to national politicians. Yeah. But there are the cases in Latin America where you need community consent before you can give land away for whatever kind of land use that is not already there. And that also like prevents these things from happening. Maybe, but not a case. But it's a nice bridge as well to the question of Gittima, Gittima. Did you, did you also include the perspective of policymakers at all levels towards wetlands conservation so maybe this is more maybe what is then the perspective of higher level policymakers and maybe because you I think also talk with people from the National Environmental Management Authority. So how are they looking at this. What is their perspective on their wetland conservation so what maybe needs to be done for a more sustainable transformation. So what I noticed that all levels of policy making was that they were multiple perspectives. If we're talking about the Neema, there are at national and sub national levels. Maybe in the legal requirement that there is a need to do a environmental impact assessment every time a proposed project is, is being considered, but at times, that is not the case it doesn't happen always. And so, on one side you'll have the perspective of Neema saying this needs to be prioritized this needs to happen conservation is important and we need to protect our environment. But on the other hand, based on the interviews I've had it's in some instances, even though they are recommending that the project doesn't proceed, then an approval is granted either way at the national level. From Neema itself so there's two perspective depending on the level of politics in it. And that exists and for all policy doctors all groups of policy doctors have noticed so even at the community level you'll have those who are in support of conservation and those who are really looking out for their individual or a group benefits and which is not in alignment with conservation. Yes, I did interview and considered all levels of policy doctors from top down to bottom up. I'm not sure if that answers the question, but maybe you could tell me what part is still needing clarity. I think it's fair, a fair answer to the question but, well, although I'm not sure I am the one to judge. But would you as so in you mentioned also in your framework on transformations and how this restructuring multi skill project and etc etc. But that that other part system system wide that there is not a system wide idea of what is the desired. situation for such a wetland. So that different different departments from different or line agencies from different ministries different policy domains from agriculture to nature conservation, etc, who all have different ideas about the use of this weapons but also within at a local level within the community that there is some community members also want to convert to agricultural production and use of the wetlands others might want to conserve because it enables them for fisheries I don't know which have to sustain their livelihood, but that there is simply no agreed kind of idea about what would be the ideal situation for, or a sustainable use of the system and therefore there is a scattered kind of development. What was the question. I don't think there is actually. Yeah, there's no shared vision absolutely that's the conclusion I drew from all of this, it would be good if there is and which is why at the end I really recommend that all policy actors find a way to collaborate more and come up with some solution that is giving benefits to some will all actors but really prioritizing conservation, because right now everybody's just using the yellow wetland for whatever personal gains, and that is dominated at the moment by the investors who are really supported by the top down top up the government after sorry. Some of your vision. Can I can I have a. I'm curious about something related. Yeah, we're talking about wetlands. I don't know Kenya, but in Kenya you also have national parks. I think grasslands or range lands forests. Are all of these in the hands of the state. So are all of these in the hands of this all public property, or do communities or, or tribes or something have, have a kind of claim over that. And a kind of decision making power. The belief from the community is that it's community land but in actuality. I'm not sure that that's really the case risk or can more speak to the other wetlands. Maybe. Generally define the wetland widely including the lakes and the rivers and the yalla the matches and everything else in the national parks, maybe. The land. Let's say like, like mature doesn't belong to the community living close to like Victoria. Generally, it belongs to the government. So most land, if it is not a privately owned land, it belongs to the government. So the community can stay close to it, but it doesn't mean that it belongs to them. Legally. But they can benefit from it, because somehow it belongs in their land. So somehow they can benefit from the activity. They should benefit, not they can, they should benefit from the activity is which are taking place within those wetlands. For instance, if there's an investor in the wetland, like the yellow wetland, a private investor, which has been brought by the government, the government or the county government should ensure that the community around that area, benefit in terms of jobs, or incentive something like that. That is what should be but at times it's not the case. Yeah. The Yala ecosystem site support group were sharing their story about how they don't really feel that they're benefiting from the current agro investor. And they were speaking specifically in terms of the sugar cane production and how the agro investor brings in their own workers and then the, the cane is processed at mills that are located outside of the community. And it's not really benefiting them so they feel like they're being robbed. And it's community land, as they see it, but they're not really getting any major gains from it. So generally land in Kenya doesn't belong to somebody but you can use it but it doesn't belong to you. For a water body, it belongs to the government. To the government. So is it the national government or the local government? I mean, that is just, I think just interesting also to compare across cases. I would say national. Yeah, generally it belongs to the national government but when you come to locally it belongs to the county government. Depending on the jurisdiction, if it is discounted then it belongs back out to the government but generally the national government is in charge. Thank you. Sorry for insisting. Yeah, thank you, Anders. Yeah, it sounds a bit like a, a, a trilogy of comments. Kind of story. The public comments, the public goods that are. It is actually, in a way it is not in the sense that the effective way to avoid it would be to have either state control or private property. And the idea is that if you would give it to a collective to a community, then that would be held in common. And that would then be doomed to fail. Yeah, but now it's, it looks almost that it falls all in between. All in here. Yeah, but the question now is who is the community. Yeah, if you cannot. That should be. It's difficult to answer. Then I think that is also a sign that there's not a strong authority. If you immediately know, then, then you have come across locally established well organized that already has its root in that area organization. That can rival these other actors that you talked about. Yeah. Yeah, and, and, and then it results in these actors acting privately so it's private agribusiness but also private actors that also then claim land for reclamation and, and then you see well. Invisible hands that's staring in this case not to a sustainable kind of practice. Yeah, absolutely. We are almost at four p.m. I would like to ask, are there any final questions maybe. If not, then I'm going to thank you Denise for your presentation and sharing your work with us. We will make sure that this is also available to the wider project team so thank you very much also thank you of course to the Canyon project partners that facilitated your work. Thank you, Risper and your colleagues. I think before the project meeting in Mexico there's not another webinar scheduled but if so. Well, our colleagues will inform us about it. And in relation to deli her question, I will share Denise her presentation to you by email. Okay, thank you very much and with that I close this webinar thank you Denise thank you everybody for joining and for your interesting questions and discussion. Bye.